h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

(Not part of NaJoPoMo)

Here's a bowdlerized and partially edited version of a wonderful quote from George Carlin from 2008.


Carlin - The Real
Owners Of America
24.06.2008


"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the [short hairs]. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying... ­ lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want? They want more for themselves and less for everybody else."

"But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting [Belgium]ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 [Belgium]ing years ago.

"You know what they want? Obedient workers... ­ people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly [more pooh laden] jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your [Belgium]ing retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this [Belgium]ing place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. By the way, it's the same club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy"...

"It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."


With the #OWS protests it seems Carlin was speaking to the 99%. I think he'd like what they're doing and saying. While much of the coverage of the protests, especially in the main stream media and Faux News focuses on their apparent lack of direction and message, they are accomplishing something very important. They are changing the dialogue. They are changing the questions the public are asking. I recently saw a report that looked at the terms used in the media. Before the protests the leading terms recurring in the press was about the deficit. Now it's about corporate greed. The term "corporate greed" appeared around 300 times in the month before the protests and 1600 in this last month. Whether the media is leading the story or not, people are looking at the oppressive financial inequality we're seeing everywhere today and many of these people aren't going to let it just get swept under the rug for the next talking point.


I'll use this journal entry to post things I find and things that occur to me that relate to this New Gilded Age we live in.


Today I read this article in the Guardian about The Corporation of London.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval
This is something I'd certainly never heard of. I think a lot of people will be hearing about it soon. This makes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce look like rank amateurs, mere upstarts.

I wonder where the Tea Party stand in the eyes of the Owners? As a very useful tool, I would imagine. A tool that, when brand new you look after and keep clean, but once it's started to lose its usefulness, its edge, its shine, gets shoved to the back of the tool drawer with all the others. And while most of the Tea Party probably don't even think about the Owners, the few who do think they're helping and will be rewarded.

By the way, the Owners' 'more for us less for you' mentality doesn't only apply to big corporations and the kinds of organisations who can spend millions on lobbying.

Here's more on how OWS is changing the discussion.

http://salon.com/a/shQebAA

Citigroup paid a $285 million fine for loading half of a $1 billion dollar fund with toxic mortgage assets it knew would likely fail and then sold them short betting they would. This is similar to what Goldman Sachs did but more blatant in that they skipped the middle man. Citigroup paid this fine while neither admitting or denying any wrongdoing. Really?

More on this here: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-bankers.html?_r=1

The writer suggests the following:
>>We need to focus on four reforms that don’t require new bureaucracies to implement. 1) If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big and needs to be broken up. We can’t risk another trillion-dollar bailout. 2) If your bank’s deposits are federally insured by U.S. taxpayers, you can’t do any proprietary trading with those deposits — period. 3) Derivatives have to be traded on transparent exchanges where we can see if another A.I.G. is building up enormous risk. 4) Finally, an idea from the blogosphere: U.S. congressmen should have to dress like Nascar drivers and wear the logos of all the banks, investment banks, insurance companies and real estate firms that they’re taking money from. The public needs to know. <<

Point 4, while entertaining would just legitimize them. Corporate sponsorship of elected officials needs to end. The insane costs for running campaigns needs to end. The playing field needs to be leveled so that elected officials don't spend half their terms trying to get re-elected for the next term and the other half setting themselves up as lobbyists and power brokers for those same companies when they leave. The corruption in Washington is so all pervasive now that it's no longer even seen as corruption. We need to end the era of billionaires financing the millionaires in congress.

4) Finally, an idea from the blogosphere: U.S. congressmen should have to dress like Nascar drivers and wear the logos of all the banks, investment banks, insurance companies and real estate firms that they’re taking money from. The public needs to know.

Maybe it would legitimize them, or maybe not. Maybe we would see that the congressman or senator was just a spokesman for Chase Manhattan, representing that corporation's best interests and not ours.

Hard to tell at this time, but with a little research and PhotoShop , we can run an experiment.

I had an idea yesterday about this. I'd like to see a law that do the following. All political contributions up to $5000 would be taxed at 100%. All political contributions above $5000 would be taxed at 500%. And no anonymous political contributions would be allowed. Some percentage of the proceeds would go to a general campaign fund for all candidates for national office.

I found this article through a tweet from Happy Nerd (if I'm not mistaken). It explains something I've suspected for many years. Our worship of the stock market is ruining capitalism. In my lifetime, companies have changed course from trying to maximize earnings to trying to maximize shareholder value. Exacerbating this is having CEO's and upper management's compensation based increasingly on stock values.

Remember when companies made money by selling good products, and made good products by investing in their employees through training and compensation? Remember when earning interest on savings was a viable a means of retirement income rather than relying predominately on stock investments and mutual funds? Wait, do you remember when you could earn interest on savings?

Companies now try to minimize costs more than they try to maximize earnings and often this comes at the expense of workers. They shutter plants while executive pay and bonuses skyrocket.

The system is broken.

This really is a good article, and I am thinking about getting this book.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/

Did I post a link recently to a news story, BBC I think, explaining how capitalism is capitalism's worst enemy? If I didn't I doubt I could find the link again, dang it all.

Here are a few links concerning SOPA/PIPA and the international threat ACTA.

http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html
http://www.eff.org/issues/acta
http://theoatmeal.com/sopa (this one's a bonus).

These are a huge threat to liberties for people and businesses all over the world and they're being driven by the greed and laziness of media and recording companies, mostly in the US. These companies claim to be so direly threatened by copyright infringement and piracy. They claim that their very livelihoods are at stake due to the lost revenues. Yet they have seemingly endless billions of dollars to spend pushing these draconian bills and trade agreements, not to mention the similar laws they've already worked behind the scenes in nations around the word to enact. This really does get at the heart of how huge corporations and organizations corrupt our democratic process and exercise their will on people everywhere.

And, now, late in the day, relaxing on the couch watching TV I see a pro SOPA/PIPA ad sponsored by The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, no less (the US Chamber of Commerce is a well known conservative lobbying group backed by people like the Koch brothers).

I was watching the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC.

Bullies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17350103

Ok... we need another smiley. is just not enough. I need a smiley for this inanity.

A Belgian copyright holders group is threatening to charge libraries for READING BOOKS TO KIDS!

http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/03/13/belgian-rightsholders-group-wants-to-charge-libraries-for-reading-books-to-kids/


Look. I started off my career in photography and I'm very aware of how copyright infringement affects creators. When I worked in photo labs, I was very strict on customers who wanted us to make copies of portraits and other obviously copyrighted prints. Without a written release, we're not doing it. And NO! Just cutting off the photographers name from the bottom of the print will not be enough.

But in the last 20 years rights holders, not necessarily the artists or creators themselves mind you, have gotten a mind set that no pair of eyes or ears may look upon their property without shelling over some filthy lucre first.

People, generally, do not want to break the laws; they would rather not resort to piracy. They'd rather pay a reasonable price to own a work or even 'rent' it. And they'd also like a chance to try/test/taste/sample/hear/see an artist's work for free or nearly so before they buy it.

I think you know that I'm no fan of either bullies or corporations, but there's an astonishing amount of naivete being shown by the people running the Hobbit pub in that story.

The story says they've been running it for 20 years. Okay, I guess that means the previous copyright holders, before the films were made, had no problem with it, or perhaps they didn't know about it. Now there's a new, more voracious, sheriff in town.

On the one hand copyright holders have a duty of care to follow up any bona fide breaches of copyright, and sometimes that makes them look like a bully if they're going after someone less powerful, but people often find themselves in that situation because they really didn't think it through.

Let's look at some of the quotes and details.

"Landlady Ms Roberts said: "We were absolutely stunned. It was completely unexpected, we never intended to infringe anyone's copyright.""

Does she really believe that using the names of characters from a piece of copyright work is going to be okay? Even I'm not that stupid.

"How long do we need to protect works for? Do we protect the works of Mozart and Shakespeare?" she added."

Even by the ridiculous lengths of copyright years demanded by people like Disney, that's a risible question. JRR Tolkien died in 1974. Whatever the number of years after the author's death it is in the UK, 1974 is within that period. William Shakespeare died in 1616. Mozart died in 1791. Neither of them were subject to copyright during their lifetime.

"The pub in Bevois Valley, which is popular with students, has traded with the name for more than 20 years."

Referring to my comments above, if they got along fine without the previous copyright holders minding, I can understand their dismay, to a point. However...

"It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu, and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card."

Now I've lost all sympathy for them. They took Elijah Woods' image and used it on their loyalty card? Really? And they thought they'd get away with it? Really? In this day and age? Wouldn't be surprised if Elijah Woods' people are thinking about talking to the pub about using their client's image without permission.

"Also on Twitter, MP for Southampton Itchen John Denham said: "You would have thought the film company makes enough money to be able to leave the popular Hobbit pub in Southampton alone."

Copyright law is obviously not his speciality. Nor is knowledge of the real world.

However...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17390623

"Mr Zaentz told the BBC that trademark law dictated they had to act against infringements of their brands. "Regardless of the size of the company, if we didn't go after these infringements, then other people would say 'if they can use them without authorisation, why can't we?'"

Exactly. It's like when you work in a restaurant and one day you give something over and above what's on the menu. Next time they come in they expect to get it again, ask for it, don't get, say "but I had it last time/yesterday/last week", and generally start making a fuss and ruining some poor waiter's day.

Siding with small guy is very noble and I'll do it myself when justified, but when they do something stupid they should accept the consequences.

Here's a link to the video of Carlin expressing the theme of this thread. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Tonight is the third and final Presidential Debate here in Dream Land. I will probably not bother watching it as Romney has demonstrated that Carlin was absolutely right. The owners got what they wanted long ago, an obedient working class without the ability to think critically. Romney has demonstrated definitively that a presidential candidate does not need to even pretend to tell the truth, or give any specifics at all. The media has played right along with him and let him go right ahead and scoff at the American public by refusing to release his tax returns or even give a single specific regarding his plans for office. He's bought and payed for and so are the American workers. CEOs are free to tell their workers who to vote for and threaten their jobs if Obama gets elected. Thank you Citizen's United. Would you like a receipt?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

This is quite disturbing. The Occupy Movement crackdowns were coordinated between the FBI, DHS, local and other law enforcement agencies and the big banks and their interests. Corporate driven suppression of dissent. And considering that US citizens are the most spied upon people in history means these are dark and scary times we live in.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americans-are-the-most-spied-on-people-in-world-history/5314330

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26855657

That's pretty much it for representative democracy in the U.S. When combined with the catastrophic decision in the Citizens United case, bribery has been legalized. Hell, it's not just legal, it's a prerequisite for office.

I can sympathize with the idea that money = speech, that the first amendment free speech rights could extend to political spending, that limits on how much one person is allowed to spend could be seen as infringing on a perceived liberty. But there has to be an alternative that doesn't destroy our democracy leaving us with a plutocracy or oligarchy. Votes don't count nearly as much as dollars. At the state level and above, no one gets on a ballot for the two parties without major funding. If voters have to choose solely from candidates with major sponsors, there isn't anyone to represent their interests.

Hell, one American Oligarch personally AUDITIONED republican presidential candidates last week!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-gop-candidates-kiss-up-to-billionaire-sheldon-adelson/2014/04/01/5ba335dc-b9dc-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

So it is no surprise that when these "representatives" are in office, they don't represent their constituents. They represent their donors.

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/26/294361018/how-to-meet-your-congressman

>>David Broockman of the University of California, Berkeley, Joshua Kalla of Yale University and a liberal group called CREDO Action teamed up to conduct a little experiment last summer.

What they wanted to do was examine to what extent legislators take meetings with donors precisely because they've donated.

They sent emails to 191 members of Congress asking for a meeting to discuss a chemical-banning bill. All the messages were identical, except for two words: One email template asked the lawmaker to meet with "local campaign donors"; the other asked the lawmaker to meet with "local constituents."

"The offices who just thought they were being asked to meet with normal constituents, we almost never got a meeting with a member of Congress, or a chief of staff or a legislative director — the most powerful people in congressional offices," says Broockman. "On the other hand, when we reveal that the attendees were donors, they were more than three times as likely to get those meetings."<<



Where is the outrage? Why aren't people shouting in the streets? Why are so many that do bother to vote, voting against their interests?
Have we been that beaten down? Have we been co-opted? Have we been brainwashed?

Here you go:

http://action.citizen.org/p/salsa/event/common/public/search.sjs?distributed_event_KEY=706

https://movetoamend.org/

Sadly, I think that will do no good. And I agree with the ruling to some extent. If anyone can donate to campaigns, then spending can be considered speech and restrictions could be ruled unconstitutional.

No, I think more fundamental changes are needed. The entire election process needs overhauled. Maybe we need to have mandatory voting like the Australians. Maybe we need limited campaign seasons like the British. Maybe we need campaigns to be funded from general pools rather than private contributions. We definitely need to eliminate gerrymandering. Ideally districts would be shaped by algorithms that only balance geological areas and population centers.

But the thing is, nothing is going to change because the people who can make these changes are in the legislature and every single one of them are corrupt to some extent. Every one of them had to take a LOT of money to get on the ballot and the people that gave them that money are not going to tolerate their puppets' strings being cut.

IMO, key is stripping personhood from corporations while shoring up free speech (including reclassifying Internet service) and voting rights for natural people.

It's been a while since I've posted here. But this article struck a chord.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/proof-the-fcc-will-ignore-your-net-neutrality-comment-and-listen-to-isps-instead

TL;DL Public comments are ignored. There is no democracy.

While government agencies are often required to accept public comments, they have no compunction to give them any more weight due to their numbers. They will consider the well presented "facts" and legal arguments of one deep pocketed corporation much more than the emotional pleas of the public, no matter how eloquently stated.

I've participated in many letter writing campaigns over the years. I've often thought they were pointless and futile. Now I *know* they often are.